I made it a rule not to buy any movies older than 2005 on Blu-ray simply because most movies would just be upscaled versions of their DVD counterparts with some possible cleanup involved. *Unless* it was a classic and went through a complete restoration, The Wizard of Oz as an example. Watching that on Blu-ray is just phenomenal. (Except for that rogue hair that's STILL stuck in the camera at the end. Don't get me started on that....)

I'll probably pick this up at some point, after the price drops.

>> ^NetRunner:

@jimnms I think the right lesson to take from the example of Brazil is "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime."
Also, you're wrong about gun shows, there's a pretty big loophole. From wikipedia:

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

In other words, you can always just say you're a private seller, and sell guns at gunshows without doing background checks or recording the sale.
There are videos, sifted right here on Videosift, of people going and buying guns at gunshows while literally saying to the seller "I don't need a background check, right? 'Cause I probably couldn't pass one" with the seller replying with some form of "no problem, here's your gun".
But more than anecdotal video evidence, there's also a been series of studies about drug cartels moving serious amounts of guns using straw purchases at gun shows.
Yet for some reason you're calling Moyers a liar for saying the same thing.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban set the maximum legal size of a single clip at 10 rounds. IIRC, this latest shooting featured the shooter using a barrel mag with over 100. That used to be illegal. Also, the Tuscon shooting featured a shooter using 2 guns with 30-round clips -- and he was stopped when he had to reload.
Personally, I don't quite understand the anti-gun control side of the argument. Say banning assault weapons only reduces the number of people killed by gun violence by 1.6%. That's still what, a few thousand people's lives a year? Why is having assault weapons legal for civilians worth the deaths of a thousand people a year? Why would it be worth the death of even one person a year? You can still have a pistol, a hunting rife, a shotgun, etc., you just can't have a high-velocity, large-magazine firearm. What exactly is the harm in making that illegal?


That's not a loophole in gun shows, private sales and transfer of firearms are not regulated in some states. You can't set up a booth and sell guns at a gun show unless you are a licensed gun dealer. And you certainly aren't going to walk in and buy a fully automatic assault rifle without showing ID or getting a background check. If a person legally has a fully automatic weapon, they have to have a class 3 federal firearms license and register the weapon with the ATF. If they sell that weapon, the person they are selling it to must also have a class 3 firearms license and the transfer of the weapon must be reported to the ATF.

I've seen the videos you speak of and I read the report you linked. It's good that the ATF is doing their job and cracking down on those douchbags dealers. What you said about Brazil, "gun control laws need to be properly enforced to reduce homicide", not "gun control laws never reduce gun crime.", can be said about the U.S. also.

The assault weapon ban limited pistols magazines to 10 rounds and rifles to 30 rounds. This also only applied to weapons and magazines manufactured or imported before the 1994 law went into effect. He still could purchase the high capacity magazine if it was manufactured or imported before the law went into effect, or he could have purchased it illegally.

People are still confused about what an assault rifle is. The definition of an assault rifle is a gun that can fire full auto or in bursts, and generally uses a shorter, less powerful cartridge than a battle rifle. The guns the media so ignorantly call assault rifles are NOT assault rifles. They look like their military assault rifle counterpart, fire the same round, but the internals are different. They only fire in semi-automatic and can not be modified to fire full auto.

If "assault weapons" were the least used weapons in violent crimes, why go after them when according to the DOJ the effect on crime is "too small for reliable measurement, because assault weapons are rarely used in gun crimes." The guns most preferred by criminals are small caliber (.25, .38 an 9mm) easily concealed pistols with magazines of 7 or less. So what do they do? They ban "assault rifles" and big magazines. Does that make any sense? It's just politics to appease the mass stupids by banning big scary looking guns.

Lets apply the same logic used by legalize drug crowd (which I'm all for). Pot and other drugs are illegal. There are laws against the sale and possession of these drugs, yet people still get them. Ban all guns, and people will still get them, only it will just criminals with guns. Both England and Australia have banned private ownership of guns, and their crime rates went up because the only people left with guns were criminals [1][2][3][4]. Why don't we give that a try here, because it worked so well for them.

>> ^Buck:

hey Yogi, Harvard study good enough for ya?
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMaus
eronline.pdf
The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.


Oh really...The Law School of Harvard doesn't want to ban guns how surprising. It's because they produce Lawyers, and they produce Liars. Harvard is the place to go if you don't want to learn anything except how to be a fucking Twat. Thank you Noam Chomsky.

hey Yogi, Harvard study good enough for ya?

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

The study, which just appeared in Volume 30, Number 2 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pp. 649-694), set out to answer the question in its title: "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence." Contrary to conventional wisdom, and the sniffs of our more sophisticated and generally anti-gun counterparts across the pond, the answer is "no." And not just no, as in there is no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime, but an emphatic no, showing a negative correlation: as gun ownership increases, murder and suicide decreases.

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
Fischer was ridiculously dominant in his heyday, but comparing players across eras is difficult. Chess has become so much more professionalized now. The players train a lot harder, and more importantly they have computers to help them train, so in general players at the top levels now have a much tighter game than their counterparts in the 70s. It's kind of like tennis: if you judge based on dominance over his peers, Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time, but I'm sure Federer, Nadal or Djokovic could absolutely spank Laver in his prime.
Still, you'll get no argument from me if you believe Fischer is a strong contender for the "greatest ever" title. I still prefer Kasparov, but I might be biased because Kasparov isn't a racist lunatic. It's good to know that it's possible for a person to be a transcendent chess genius and still be a functional human being.


Fischer is a stupid racist idiot. However Kasparov is a politician...soo not much better in my book.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^Sotto_Voce:
>> ^Yogi:
#1 ranked in the world...I'll be Kasparov could come outa retirement and destroy this kid. Young whipper snappers. Also the FIDE rating is sort of messed up in certain ways. This guy though can play 10 games at once not looking at the board, that's a special sort of autism right there, pretty neat.

He has played Kasparov before, as he mentions at the end of the clip. They played two matches in 2004. One was a draw and Kasparov won the other one. Of course, Carlsen was only 13 back then, so I think he'd have a considerably better shot now. Anyway, very few chess players can hold a candle to Kasparov in his prime, but Carlsen is one of them, even though their playing styles are very different. Whether his career will be as impressive as Kasparov's remains to be seen, but he's definitely had a good start: youngest world number 1 ever, second highest FIDE ranking ever. He needs to win the World Championship now, but I'm sure that's coming. Incidentally, Kasparov actually coached Carlsen for a little while.

Fuck off with all this helpful information! Anyways Kasparov has been retired for a long time, so yeah Carlsen would probably take him. I still think FIDE rankings are bullshit, the best chess master ever as Fischer dammit!


Fischer was ridiculously dominant in his heyday, but comparing players across eras is difficult. Chess has become so much more professionalized now. The players train a lot harder, and more importantly they have computers to help them train, so in general players at the top levels now have a much tighter game than their counterparts in the 70s. It's kind of like tennis: if you judge based on dominance over his peers, Rod Laver is the greatest tennis player of all time, but I'm sure Federer, Nadal or Djokovic could absolutely spank Laver in his prime.

Still, you'll get no argument from me if you believe Fischer is a strong contender for the "greatest ever" title. I still prefer Kasparov, but I might be biased because Kasparov isn't a racist lunatic. It's good to know that it's possible for a person to be a transcendent chess genius and still be a functional human being.

Ana needs to stop doing opinion stuff and more investigative journalism. She seems biased but intelligent and conscientious. She would be a great counterpart to Rachael Maddow if she got her chops up.

>> ^Trancecoach:

@davidraine, @NetRunner: Please read the article, then we can have a discussion.


Done. That was a very entitled and misogynistic read, and the arguments sounded exactly like the ones the Republican on Meet The Press presented. The $40k/$47k line was used specifically -- except that it's a figure that's now eleven years old, so who knows how valid it is anymore. In any event, I claim that based on this sample of his work, the book represents a very misogynistic viewpoint. Not everything in the book is going to be anti-woman, but there's enough there to form a clear pattern.

"Give women ways of earning more rather than suing more." / "Give companies ways of teaching women how to earn more."

Both of these statements stem from the belief that women think they are a privileged class and should get more rights and protections then men. It further states that the playing field is already level, and if women were just a little smarter they'd figure out how to earn more and wouldn't need the courts to fight their battles for them. This is misogynistic on its face -- It is a belief that women aren't as bright as men and need special training to "earn more", and a belief that women aren't already doing the same work men are. It also assumes that the playing field is actually level, which it is not.

"At this moment in history, gender-specific research is funded with a consciousness toward making women in the workplace look equally engaged but unequally paid."

This espouses a belief that there is an agenda behind equal-pay studies and that the researchers were biased and cannot be trusted. It's a form of "projecting" -- Modern Republicans (among others) love this tactic and truly believe in it because their studies have an agenda and are biased, so all studies must be the same way. The fact is that biased studies don't hold up to scrutiny (peer review), and research methodologies are published to help verify the quality of a study. It's also the same argument that you used in an earlier post: "The statistics can be shown to prove anything, so I can raise a counterargument without supporting it with data."

"From the Jobs Rated Almanac’s worst-job list: We often hear that women are segregated into lower-paying jobs. What is probably true is that women are more likely to take lower paid jobs precisely to avoid these worst jobs." / "The fields with the highest paid workers bias toward engineering, computers and the hard sciences while the lowest paid are doing work that almost any adult can do—therefore there is no end to the supply of available people."

The fact that this is still used as an argument means that those using it are being deliberately misleading. This misses the point and always has. If unequal pay was a function of occupation choice, then a man and a woman in the same job at the same company would make the same amount of money. This is provably false.

"Men’s Weakness As Their Façade Of Strength; Women’s Strength as Their Façade Of Weakness" / "In most fields with higher pay, you can’t psychologically check out at the end of the day (corporate attorney vs. librarian)"

These comments espouse a belief in seriously outdated gender roles. Assuming women should be shrinking violets that do their work behind the scenes and do amazing things that surprise the men she is working under is not the way it works anymore, and thank goodness because that was a bunch of crap when it was expected (which was what, five decades ago?). The concept that women can't handle the stress of not leaving work behind when you leave work is equally misogynistic.

"People Who Get Higher Pay..."

This is the last one I'll tackle, and I'm going to repeat myself here, because it bears repeating. This is the heart of what's wrong with the "equal-pay is a myth" counterargument. The whole chapter and the next is predicated on the belief that women make less because they're making the wrong choices, not risking as much as their male counterparts, and are working less than the men even though they're in the same position. Therefore women *should* earn less because women are *doing* less.

Except that women *aren't* doing less. They don't just occupy the same positions, they do the same work. In some cases they do more work, and are still stiffed and passed over for promotion. Women are willing and able to do exactly what men do for their jobs, and yet they make considerably less for no reason other than their gender. There isn't an "effort gap" or "reverse sexism" or "societal factors" in play here -- Those have been modeled and they don't explain the disparity. It is discrimination, plain and simple. It's literally the only explanation left over.

>> ^longde:

South Sudan has announced a withdrawal


Thanks for both the update and the video Longde. Here's a few lines from Al Jazeera's coverage of recent changes there:

Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir has said his troops have defeated South Sudanese forces who occupied his country's main oilfield, but added that the battle was not over.

"They started the fighting and we will announce when it will end, and our advance will never stop," Bashir told a rally attended by thousands in Khartoum on Friday.

He dismissed a statement by his southern counterpart Salva Kiir that the troops which had invaded Heglig - which accounts for about 50 per cent of Sudan's oil - had withdrawn.

"There is no withdrawal. We beat them by force ... Until now, their people are running," Bashir, wearing an olive army uniform, said at military headquarters.

>> ^kceaton1:

Neil is asserting the old question of whether something of sufficient intelligence beyond ours; and not just intelligence it will also cover anything that intelligence has manifested for us: languages (although as others have pointed out languages are special and in fact may be a foundational aspect of intelligence; then we create other forms of language over the instinctive setup, like math, or coding), culture, politics, civilization, and I believe those basically cover almost everything really as anything will be a group, sub-group, or "ultra"-sub-group of one of these parent categories.
The 1% that he spoke of was of course the exact genes and DNA that allow humans to complete all of their FULL "sentience". That was the key thing. We ALREADY know of animals in the past that most likely had baseline IQs of 150 or so; I'm not kidding (they were called the Boskops and unfortunately they went extinct; they lived in 'Southern' Africa, I know it was Africa just not sure it was the southern end). They most likely did not have one thing we have, making their extremely high intelligence very limited in its usefulness: they were missing LANGUAGE. Language IS --THE-- foundational stone for civilization, increasing potential, building, constructing, or making anything on the LARGE scale--for all of these you need cooperation and for that you need understanding and for THAT you need language. Language is so simple, but it is letting me right now explain to you some very straight forward ideas and a few abstract ones and it's the ability that our language and intelligence can convey these abstract notions to one and another that makes our brains SO stupendous!
Unfortunately for the Boskops they came into being at a very bad time in history. They had VERY low numbers when whatever nearly wiped out the human species hit the planet also hit them, but it decimated them into extinction. Too bad as they would have been our closest kin to having another "kind" to talk with, if we could find a way to communicate past the barrier that we surpass so easily with language and then as we get older we use different advanced forms of "language" to explain abstract things: art, math, music, etc... I think the 1% in intelligence and the barrier we may come across with other alien species is much like this scenario here. It's nice and hopeful to have faith that we WILL persevere and always be able to understand and to be needed (not to be the ants on the sidewalk...). BUT, if their biological and perhaps technological changes make us so inferior that only their babies seem to get along with us, we may have a problem. We can hope due to their intellect that they will realize that they may be able to "raise us" to their level, as we may be able to do as well--which I will say below in the next paragraph. But, we will never know until we start meeting these alien races. It is also VITAL to remember that these races will be ALIEN in EVERY sense of that word. Their genetics, their physiology, how they reproduce, not to mention their culture and language... When we meet an alien race it will be an undertaking for BOTH of our sides; not to mention the how our biosphere and their related (assuming we meet them with their spacesuits, we will most likely be the lucky ones; unless they have technology to deal with every conceivable threat--then we are the ones in trouble, unless they thought of that too) "brought-along" biosphere will interact with each other and what will happen. It'll be DAMNED interesting whether we meet in peace, trivial lifeforms with a chance of "breakthrough", and of course the resource/planet-builders or "war".
(BTW, there are some extremely good documentaries about alien biology; problems we'd have with their biology coming in contact with us (and us with them), technology differences, etc... I'll post it in this thread if I can find it and the name (hopefully I 'll be able to see if it's available for viewing pleasure somewhere or atleast Netflix if you've got it.)
1% is a bit of a cop-out... As the situation is a bit more complicated than that; especially nowadays. Soon we will begin to have the option to enhance ourselves via bio-genetics and also through technology--later through nano-technology (that is were the real fun happens; well atleast a good portion of it). To be honest we could quite literally in the far-off future take the 1% of the genetic structure that makes the aliens "super-smart" and then replicate that part directly into ourselves. We can also add computers to our brain and change our biology to do an endless amount of things--things that would sound like you just wrote a new Sci-Fi novel, but you didn't. You could also later install an sentient A.I.: merge with it, with you in control--these A.I. units would be made to have all sorts of personalities and perhaps traits, like being good at math, art, and likes to write poetry. It could have a pre-stored vault of knowledge allowing you to gain a HUGE mass of information quickly. Then you have its sentient core that is fabricated to get along with your psychology--they could be designed to feel a sense of extreme euphoria to join with and allow someone to merge with them so that there isn't any real chance of problems, because you've designed them to WANT this more than anything in THEIR lives--it would be a win-win. Suddenly you would be able to multi-task think in two frames (maybe more if you have "cloned computer cores of your A.I.") of mind with almost all of humanity's knowledge base at your fingertips and if that nanotechnology surgery went through then you had ALL of your neurons and structures rebuilt and replaced with whatever is the fastest (probably either photon or quantum based). Then, now, you are thinking almost as fast as the speed of light, we'll go conservative at 80%.
So now this once human that has been highly modified most likely from birth, perhaps even before that... We have something that the aliens might greet and realize that this object is very much ON their level--easily. Even if you are not, that can be modified and if our science is good enough and future is bright enough--THERE IS NO LIMIT. That is the other part that Neil needs to mention.
Once you are able to get so far in the intelligence game you have a CHANCE to play big and win it all. Atleast that is how I can easily see things happening. I don't think we are EVER limited, not anymore. What DOES limit human beings is our corruption, our literal moral and social decay. It is PARAMOUNT that we watch out for this! OR, we will not see these "bright" futures.

PS- A little more on my A.I. and merging possibilities. You'll have to zoom-in or copy/paste it as it's a little to long as it's too much off topic.
I really do think that is the way to go with A.I. that is sentient; make sure you do two things: one, make sure that they have an intelligence with knowledge that allows them to easily see that civilization or cooperation is KEY to us living as a species (THE SENTIENTS should be included in their programming as being different, but I would think a "speciation" should be understood. The key goal is to merge as this would give them FULL feelings and emotion while giving the human control as well, fundamentally this would be a "transcendental" process for them as they are becoming the NEXT specie in the speciation process "a new human-A.I." merged species. This would of course merely be a choice for people to make in their lives not one they HAVE TO (but that will be a subject for when something like this would ever happen). When lifespans enter the hundreds even perhaps thousands of years with little to no chance of EVER dying due to all the enhancements they may have, merging may ultimately seem like a qualitative "next step" in life, much like marriage is to many nowadays. Second, as I said above I think since WE are the designers of a new species we are ALSO INCREDIBLY responsible for their well-being, behavior, choices, and EVERYTHING that goes along with this. When we create their psychology I would purposely cause increased euphoria during MANY events in their lifetimes and basically no pain except to warn--but ONLY to the most minimal of degrees. When they interact with humans in a cooperative fashion in which the human agrees and likes euphoria can be introduced. More so for A.I.s that are going to be merged this euphoria is enhanced A LOT to better allow them to serve their counterpart so that in the merger--it is very important--that no conflict of personality would arise as it might destroy the entire "structuring" event--I'm assuming a merger may take awhile, perhaps a few days. The euphoria is a safeguard. Although I would use it many other aspects along with other beneficial things we've found the problem is are we going to just end up creating an A.I. that is essentially a drug addict. I don't know whether it's best to go backwards or forwards on that issue, as it would be nice to never have depression (if you have the chance for it). If we create robots who are sentient (because they have to be to do the job safe), but their job is to empty trash all day long; what if we co-design them to make sure they LOVE to do the job that they are doing. They also get euphoria from performing well. When they get rest they can do what they want, but perhaps since they are doing such menial and hard-work so that we don't waste our lives doing it--maybe they can have access to euphoric dream states, so when they wake THEY ARE HAPPY! Perhaps even give them a secondary core were they are enabled with their co-workers, who in these cores have very strong and different personalities, here. It could be a place like WoW meets Skyrim and while they work, loving what they do, they also lead a second life with their secondary core that gives them a true A.I. personality--with their normal euphorias and pains. But, they know it's a game and they never tire of it--it's the best ever made or that will ever be made. Such is the same for all the menial labor bots who perhaps have a little chat forum that's active for a few hours every night where everyone talks about their characters and the game--think of it like our prime-time T.V. schedule. Anyway, there are a few fun A.I. ideas...
A little long and off-topic so I'll make it SMALL!
/LONG (so if you quote me, kill my text, please, or smallify it...)

I forgot what I was going to say.

(And you can quote me on that.)

Neil is asserting the old question of whether something of sufficient intelligence beyond ours; and not just intelligence it will also cover anything that intelligence has manifested for us: languages (although as others have pointed out languages are special and in fact may be a foundational aspect of intelligence; then we create other forms of language over the instinctive setup, like math, or coding), culture, politics, civilization, and I believe those basically cover almost everything really as anything will be a group, sub-group, or "ultra"-sub-group of one of these parent categories.

The 1% that he spoke of was of course the exact genes and DNA that allow humans to complete all of their FULL "sentience". That was the key thing. We ALREADY know of animals in the past that most likely had baseline IQs of 150 or so; I'm not kidding (they were called the Boskops and unfortunately they went extinct; they lived in 'Southern' Africa, I know it was Africa just not sure it was the southern end). They most likely did not have one thing we have, making their extremely high intelligence very limited in its usefulness: they were missing LANGUAGE. Language IS --THE-- foundational stone for civilization, increasing potential, building, constructing, or making anything on the LARGE scale--for all of these you need cooperation and for that you need understanding and for THAT you need language. Language is so simple, but it is letting me right now explain to you some very straight forward ideas and a few abstract ones and it's the ability that our language and intelligence can convey these abstract notions to one and another that makes our brains SO stupendous!

Unfortunately for the Boskops they came into being at a very bad time in history. They had VERY low numbers when whatever nearly wiped out the human species hit the planet also hit them, but it decimated them into extinction. Too bad as they would have been our closest kin to having another "kind" to talk with, if we could find a way to communicate past the barrier that we surpass so easily with language and then as we get older we use different advanced forms of "language" to explain abstract things: art, math, music, etc... I think the 1% in intelligence and the barrier we may come across with other alien species is much like this scenario here. It's nice and hopeful to have faith that we WILL persevere and always be able to understand and to be needed (not to be the ants on the sidewalk...). BUT, if their biological and perhaps technological changes make us so inferior that only their babies seem to get along with us, we may have a problem. We can hope due to their intellect that they will realize that they may be able to "raise us" to their level, as we may be able to do as well--which I will say below in the next paragraph. But, we will never know until we start meeting these alien races. It is also VITAL to remember that these races will be ALIEN in EVERY sense of that word. Their genetics, their physiology, how they reproduce, not to mention their culture and language... When we meet an alien race it will be an undertaking for BOTH of our sides; not to mention the how our biosphere and their related (assuming we meet them with their spacesuits, we will most likely be the lucky ones; unless they have technology to deal with every conceivable threat--then we are the ones in trouble, unless they thought of that too) "brought-along" biosphere will interact with each other and what will happen. It'll be DAMNED interesting whether we meet in peace, trivial lifeforms with a chance of "breakthrough", and of course the resource/planet-builders or "war".
(BTW, there are some extremely good documentaries about alien biology; problems we'd have with their biology coming in contact with us (and us with them), technology differences, etc... I'll post it in this thread if I can find it and the name (hopefully I 'll be able to see if it's available for viewing pleasure somewhere or atleast Netflix if you've got it.)

1% is a bit of a cop-out... As the situation is a bit more complicated than that; especially nowadays. Soon we will begin to have the option to enhance ourselves via bio-genetics and also through technology--later through nano-technology (that is were the real fun happens; well atleast a good portion of it). To be honest we could quite literally in the far-off future take the 1% of the genetic structure that makes the aliens "super-smart" and then replicate that part directly into ourselves. We can also add computers to our brain and change our biology to do an endless amount of things--things that would sound like you just wrote a new Sci-Fi novel, but you didn't. You could also later install an sentient A.I.: merge with it, with you in control--these A.I. units would be made to have all sorts of personalities and perhaps traits, like being good at math, art, and likes to write poetry. It could have a pre-stored vault of knowledge allowing you to gain a HUGE mass of information quickly. Then you have its sentient core that is fabricated to get along with your psychology--they could be designed to feel a sense of extreme euphoria to join with and allow someone to merge with them so that there isn't any real chance of problems, because you've designed them to WANT this more than anything in THEIR lives--it would be a win-win. Suddenly you would be able to multi-task think in two frames (maybe more if you have "cloned computer cores of your A.I.") of mind with almost all of humanity's knowledge base at your fingertips and if that nanotechnology surgery went through then you had ALL of your neurons and structures rebuilt and replaced with whatever is the fastest (probably either photon or quantum based). Then, now, you are thinking almost as fast as the speed of light, we'll go conservative at 80%.

So now this once human that has been highly modified most likely from birth, perhaps even before that... We have something that the aliens might greet and realize that this object is very much ON their level--easily. Even if you are not, that can be modified and if our science is good enough and future is bright enough--THERE IS NO LIMIT. That is the other part that Neil needs to mention.

Once you are able to get so far in the intelligence game you have a CHANCE to play big and win it all. Atleast that is how I can easily see things happening. I don't think we are EVER limited, not anymore. What DOES limit human beings is our corruption, our literal moral and social decay. It is PARAMOUNT that we watch out for this! OR, we will not see these "bright" futures.



PS- A little more on my A.I. and merging possibilities. You'll have to zoom-in or copy/paste it as it's a little to long as it's too much off topic.

I really do think that is the way to go with A.I. that is sentient; make sure you do two things: one, make sure that they have an intelligence with knowledge that allows them to easily see that civilization or cooperation is KEY to us living as a species (THE SENTIENTS should be included in their programming as being different, but I would think a "speciation" should be understood. The key goal is to merge as this would give them FULL feelings and emotion while giving the human control as well, fundamentally this would be a "transcendental" process for them as they are becoming the NEXT specie in the speciation process "a new human-A.I." merged species. This would of course merely be a choice for people to make in their lives not one they HAVE TO (but that will be a subject for when something like this would ever happen). When lifespans enter the hundreds even perhaps thousands of years with little to no chance of EVER dying due to all the enhancements they may have, merging may ultimately seem like a qualitative "next step" in life, much like marriage is to many nowadays. Second, as I said above I think since WE are the designers of a new species we are ALSO INCREDIBLY responsible for their well-being, behavior, choices, and EVERYTHING that goes along with this. When we create their psychology I would purposely cause increased euphoria during MANY events in their lifetimes and basically no pain except to warn--but ONLY to the most minimal of degrees. When they interact with humans in a cooperative fashion in which the human agrees and likes euphoria can be introduced. More so for A.I.s that are going to be merged this euphoria is enhanced A LOT to better allow them to serve their counterpart so that in the merger--it is very important--that no conflict of personality would arise as it might destroy the entire "structuring" event--I'm assuming a merger may take awhile, perhaps a few days. The euphoria is a safeguard. Although I would use it many other aspects along with other beneficial things we've found the problem is are we going to just end up creating an A.I. that is essentially a drug addict. I don't know whether it's best to go backwards or forwards on that issue, as it would be nice to never have depression (if you have the chance for it). If we create robots who are sentient (because they have to be to do the job safe), but their job is to empty trash all day long; what if we co-design them to make sure they LOVE to do the job that they are doing. They also get euphoria from performing well. When they get rest they can do what they want, but perhaps since they are doing such menial and hard-work so that we don't waste our lives doing it--maybe they can have access to euphoric dream states, so when they wake THEY ARE HAPPY! Perhaps even give them a secondary core were they are enabled with their co-workers, who in these cores have very strong and different personalities, here. It could be a place like WoW meets Skyrim and while they work, loving what they do, they also lead a second life with their secondary core that gives them a true A.I. personality--with their normal euphorias and pains. But, they know it's a game and they never tire of it--it's the best ever made or that will ever be made. Such is the same for all the menial labor bots who perhaps have a little chat forum that's active for a few hours every night where everyone talks about their characters and the game--think of it like our prime-time T.V. schedule. Anyway, there are a few fun A.I. ideas...

A little long and off-topic so I'll make it SMALL!

/LONG (so if you quote me, kill my text, please, or smallify it...)

I'm so in favour of celebrities being like this. Take a look at miley cyrus.

Reminds me of when i saw that cyrus bint on a british chat show, i think she was on with hellen mirren. It was a real contrast of class against trash. Cyrus interrupting mirren to say "buy my dvd!" was a highlight.

Though i could say the same for most non-famous counterparts i've met. When did caking yourself in shit that clogs up your pores then having to dye your hair to make it suit your new orange skin tone become attractive?

There really aren't enough nice people out there (or at least not enough people think it's worth being nice), but i happen to think that niceness is really attractive.

>> ^critical_d:

wonders who the other cat obsessed person is


You!

>> ^Lilithia:

I don't hate cats, but it annoys me that everyone who owns a cat apparently has nothing else to do with his life than to capture every move their cat makes on video and upload it to YouTube. There is an excessive amount of cat videos and pictures on the Internet - some of them are really cute, but if you have seen the 10th video of a cat doing the exact same thing (mostly uninteresting things, like sitting in a bucket with vigorous inaction while looking cute) it just leads you to dislike cats. Anything that is used or shown to an excessive amount becomes annoying or boring with time. I don't have anything against the animals themselves, I sometimes even like to play with them, when I visit somebody who owns one or ten cats.


But woe betide anyone who owns between 2 and 9 cats!

>> ^Lilithia:

I don't hate cats, but it annoys me that everyone who owns a cat apparently has nothing else to do with his life than to capture every move their cat makes on video and upload it to YouTube. There is an excessive amount of cat videos and pictures on the Internet - some of them are really cute, but if you have seen the 10th video of a cat doing the exact same thing (mostly uninteresting things, like sitting in a bucket with vigorous inaction while looking cute) it just leads you to dislike cats. Anything that is used or shown to an excessive amount becomes annoying or boring with time. I don't have anything against the animals themselves, I sometimes even like to play with them, when I visit somebody who owns one or ten cats.


You are gonna LOVE the new Kitty Kat Klub!